Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Canon 16-35mm f2.8L: Part 5
#1

Now a quick look at things a bit more at the 35mm end, at f2.8 and f8 respectively:

[Image: daffs_23_35mmf28WEB_unsh.jpg]

[Image: daffs_25_35mmf8%20copyWEB.jpg]

At this size there's not too much to report, so let's have a look at some crops: f2.8 first:

[Image: daffs_23_35mmf28-cropWEB.jpg]

...followed by f8...

[Image: daffs_25_35mmf8cropWEDB.jpg]

...f11...

[Image: daffs_27_35mmf11-cropWEB.jpg]

..and f22:

[Image: daffs29_35mmf22cropWEB.jpg]

It's the familiar story: f11 just having the slightest edge over f8, though both are very good. The wider apertures hold up very well until softening slightly at the centre... but again I am wishing that f22 held its head up just a tad more. Arguably, one would perhaps not worry quite so much in terms of edge performance wide open here, as the question might be: why would anyone need edge definition when shooting a near-centre object at the widest aperture?
Generally, though, at the extreme ends of the lens, it is the 35mm end that performs slightly better at f22 than the 16mm.

So, "conclusions"?
Er, well, as this is day one, I haven't concluded yet. Nor do I expect to, as the 16-35mm f2.8L Mk2 seems to already have had the ability to reinvent itself depending on the application one wishes to use it for. More than many a lens, it requires a pleasant familiarising process to get to know its quirks and to get the most out of it. Given that constructing a wide-angle zoom is a tricky balancing of priorities, it is by no means a matter of working around its limitations, more of learning to become aware of its strengths.
For example(and I've flagged down a taxi to Subjective-ville here), it is not a landscape lens at 16mm to 19mm...it can sometimes be so from 27-ish to 35mm, depending on your requirements(so I'd guess that the 17-40L would cover the longer end better for landies)...but it most defnitely IS from 20-26mm the equal of many a prime lens...and it definitely sings a new and rare song at f11: for me, it most definitely is "worth" it for its prime landscape capabilities at the focal lengths I need "prime" capability in. It also seems(to me) to be capable of subtlely different tonal responses at some apertures and focal lengths. Whether this is me just being an "L-Noob", I've no idea, but this tonal shift in addition to "depth of field" upon going thrfough the apertures, promises a degree of new awareness for me.
What amazes me is what it can do in addition: a really interesting portrait/ candid/street lens with the ability to capture a plurality of tones...a low-light and aurally unobtrusive way to capture many shots you simply would not have thought of...a very versatile architectural lens with very low distortion, that can suggest a different approach because of the pleasing quality of its "lines".
I'd think it might disappoint, if one tried to get it to do something it's not able to do: a truism here, yes, but avoid disappointment by wising up to the fact that it will end in tears if you try to apply it as a 16mm landscaper at f16/22: however, it most certainly does 17mm at f4 considerably better than if 17mm/f4 is your lens' starting point.
It's a funny(strange) feeling having bought this lens: I find it a wonderfully advanced and superior landscape tool and more besides, hinting at more subtleties than I expected : I'm also enamoured of its obvious capabilities to do more than I expected: I imagined it would just satisfy me because it "goes wider"...yet can see already that it has the capability of changing the way I shoot if I allow it.
I'm slightly anxious that it seems often much softer at the top corners than the bottom at the wider 2 apertures: will I be sobbing at its appalling inability when I go full-frame...or will that be eclipsed by the combination of large sensor and stonking sharpness when I get into the comfort zone of 24mm at f11?
I used to decry zooms as being jacks of many trades and masters of none of them, being quite cynically locked into the discipline of primes; but to be honest this is the first lens I've felt so..interested in.... and oddly enough I feel a learning curve coming on. There is defnitely more to this lens than meets the eye...I've never thought that I'd approach any lens with both a sense of liberation and challenge.....
...time to get out more, maybe.
Finally, I must again stress the subjective nature of these thoughts: if anyone says, "you've got it all wrong", they may well be correct; if they were to say how unscientific I've been, then they most certainly are!

All my stuff is here: www.doverow.com
(Just click on the TOP RIGHT buttons to take you to my Image Galleries or Music Rooms!)
My band TRASHVILLE, in which I'm lead guitarist: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6mU6qaNx08
Reply


Messages In This Thread
Canon 16-35mm f2.8L: Part 5 - by Zig - Mar 15, 2008, 22:42
Canon 16-35mm f2.8L: Part 5 - by slejhamer - Mar 16, 2008, 06:20
Canon 16-35mm f2.8L: Part 5 - by Zig - Mar 16, 2008, 17:01
Canon 16-35mm f2.8L: Part 5 - by matthew - Mar 16, 2008, 18:51
Canon 16-35mm f2.8L: Part 5 - by Wedding Shooter - Mar 18, 2008, 09:15
Canon 16-35mm f2.8L: Part 5 - by Irma - Mar 19, 2008, 03:29
Canon 16-35mm f2.8L: Part 5 - by matthew - Mar 19, 2008, 07:32

Possibly Related Threads…
Thread / Author Replies Views Last Post
Last Post by EdMak
Jun 22, 2017, 01:12
Last Post by caveman
Mar 19, 2016, 14:18
Last Post by caveman
Mar 15, 2016, 14:03

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)